Funny, I was assuming the same about you... I am American, and so is everybody that I have ever known to play around with them. If you haven't heard of the term that is fine, but I do not believe for one second that you could not think of a more appropriate term than "IED".

> "It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states: Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps."

Yes... and? What is your point?

> If you think IED has no emotional baggage

The opposite actually..

> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.

So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?

Everyone knows that these (whether they be called "works bombs" or "Drano bombs") are illegal and you'll get in trouble if caught. And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.

So, my point is that you'd have to be naive to think there wouldn't be repercussions setting one of these off in a school.

> If you think IED has no emotional baggage The opposite actually..

Typo. I incorrectly added the "no".

> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police. So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?

No, they really didn't care about the pipe, those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall. Damage happens with 100 18-year olds on one dorm floor. But the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".

I have addressed this already.

> And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.

Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.

> those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall

You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?

> the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".

I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken, but even if you are neither that does nothing to say that the treatment of this girl is reasonable.

Yet you still seem to be shocked that she is being punished. Your previous posts equate this to just 'kids bring kids'.

Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.

I have never once, in all my replies, said this deserves a felony. I have defended the zero tolerance policies in schools but I don't think an expulsion is the same as being a felon.

This might deserve a misdemeanor with a fair amount of community service. She should do it at a vet home to see the consequences of real explosives and why they aren't to be played with.

You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?

I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken

I tell a personal anecdote and I'm either lying or mistaken? You are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. You couldn't possibly imagine that there were overzealous campus police when you are commenting on a story where we are obviously seeing overzealous prosecution? What a double standard.